Submitting Patches
==================

.. _introduction:

Introduction
------------

Mesa contribution is a collaborative process that works like this:
A contributor proposes a change (usually in the form of a GitLab
merge request), which must undergo a review (usually in the form of
comments from the maintainers on the merge request).

The maintainers either accept it as-is, reject it outright,
or request changes from the contributor before a contribution
can be accepted.

Mesa is a project that is made up of many different subprojects,
for example drivers, API frontends, shader compiler infrastructure,
etc. Each of these parts may have different maintainers and/or
different rules and conventions. It is up to the maintainers of
each specific part to decide what is acceptable for them and
to direct the development of that part.

.. _expectations_on_contributors:

Expectations on contributors
----------------------------

Due to the collaborative nature of development, the expectation is that
the contributor engages with the maintainers and works with
us to shape the changeset into a form that can be accepted in the project.

If you want to contribute code to Mesa, we highly recommend the following:

-  Familiarize yourself with `Git <https://git-scm.com>`__.
-  Understand the code you write at least well enough to be able
   to explain why your changes are beneficial to the project.
-  It's up you what tools you use to write code (development environment,
   coding assistant, etc.), but keep in mind that no tool can substitute
   actual understanding.

In case you are not familiar with the code base, it's okay to ask for help
and guidance from more experienced developers.

The submitter is responsible for the code change, regardless of where
that code change came from, whether they wrote it themselves, used an
"AI" or other tool, or got it from someone else. That responsibility
includes making sure that the code change can be submitted under the
MIT license that Mesa uses.

This extends through the use of the tool you are using to submit your
contributions. It is not allowed to use autonomously acting tools to
submit any contributions, that is every contributions needs explicit
oversight and your review. This includes interactions with GitLab issues
or MRs in any autonomous way through such tools. It will be decided by the
community and maintainers which and how such tooling will be used within
the Mesa project and might be made available for other contributors to use
through our GitLab instance. Do not under any circumstances wire up any
review bot or similar tools.

The submitter needs to understand what code they are changing,
what the change does, and justify that change in the commit messages.
Using coding assistants or "AI" or other tools does not grant additional
privileges or reduce our expectations.

Disclosure is always required when "AI" was involved in the creative
process of coming up with the code, except in the following cases:

-  Trivial or small changes that wouldn't be copyrightable regardless of
   "AI" involvement. For example something like a "min" function fit this
   category.
-  Mechanical changes where the expected result is obvious and not up to
   interpretation, ie. when it would be the same regardless of what
   tooling was used. For example, autocomplete, refactoring the name of a
   variable and similar activities fit this category. In these cases it is
   still recommended (but not required) to disclose the tool used,
   eg. "AI", "sed", "cocinelle", etc. in order to ease the review process.

We suggest the following scheme to disclose the level "AI" tooling was
involved:

-  ``Assisted-by: TOOL (OPTIONAL: MODEL)`` for when "AI" was involved in making
   decisions or also generated parts of the code.
-  ``Generated-by: TOOL (OPTIONAL: MODEL)`` for when almost all the code was
   generated through "AI".

Do not use the ``Co-authored-by`` tag as this one is reserved for human
co-authors.

If you don't know programming (and don't want to learn), but you are
interested in the Mesa project, there are plenty of other ways to
contribute besides writing code, for example reporting bugs, benchmarking,
testing changes, etc.

.. _guidelines:

Basic guidelines
----------------

-  Patches should not mix code changes with code formatting changes
   (except, perhaps, in very trivial cases.)
-  Code patches should follow Mesa :doc:`coding
   conventions <codingstyle>`.
-  Whenever possible, patches should only affect individual Mesa/Gallium
   components.
-  Patches should never introduce build breaks and should be bisectable
   (see ``Git bisect``.)
-  Patches should be properly :ref:`formatted <formatting>`.
-  Patches should be sufficiently :ref:`tested <testing>` before
   submitting.
-  Patches should be :ref:`submitted <submit>` via a merge request for
   :ref:`review <reviewing>`.

.. _formatting:

Patch formatting
----------------

-  Lines should be limited to 75 characters or less so that Git logs
   displayed in 80-column terminals avoid line wrapping. Note that
   ``git log`` uses 4 spaces of indentation (4 + 75 < 80).
-  The first line should be a short, concise summary of the change
   prefixed with a module name. Examples:

   ::

      mesa: Add support for querying GL_VERTEX_ATTRIB_ARRAY_LONG

      gallium: add pipe_caps.device_reset_status_query

      i965: Fix missing type in local variable declaration.

-  Subsequent patch comments should describe the change in more detail,
   if needed. For example:

   ::

      i965: Remove end-of-thread SEND alignment code.

      This was present in Eric's initial implementation of the compaction code
      for Sandybridge (commit 077d01b6). There is no documentation saying this
      is necessary, and removing it causes no regressions in piglit on any
      platform.

-  A "Signed-off-by:" line is not required, but not discouraged either.
-  If a patch addresses an issue in GitLab, use the Closes: tag For
   example:

   ::

      Closes: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/-/work_items/1

   Prefer the full URL to just ``Closes: #1``, since the URL makes it
   easier to get to the bug page from ``git log``

   **Do not use the ``Fixes:`` tag for this!** Mesa already uses
   ``Fixes:`` for something else.
   See :ref:`below <fixes>`.

-  If there have been several revisions to a patch during the review
   process, they should be noted such as in this example:

   ::

      st/mesa: add ARB_texture_stencil8 support (v4)

      if we support stencil texturing, enable texture_stencil8
      there is no requirement to support native S8 for this,
      the texture can be converted to x24s8 fine.

      v2: fold fixes from Marek in:
         a) put S8 last in the list
         b) fix renderable to always test for d/s renderable
           fixup the texture case to use a stencil only format
           for picking the format for the texture view.
      v3: hit fallback for getteximage
      v4: put s8 back in front, it shouldn't get picked now (Ilia)

-  If someone tested your patch, document it with a line like this:

   ::

      Tested-by: Joe Hacker <jhacker@foo.com>

-  If the patch was reviewed (usually the case) or acked by someone,
   that should be documented with:

   ::

      Reviewed-by: Joe Hacker <jhacker@foo.com>
      Acked-by: Joe Hacker <jhacker@foo.com>

-  When updating a merge request add all the tags (``Acked-by:``, ``Reviewed-by:``,
   ``Fixes:``, ``Backport-to:`` and/or other) to the commit messages.
   This provides reviewers with quick feedback if the patch has already
   been reviewed.

.. _fixes:

The ``Fixes:`` tag
------------------

If a patch addresses a issue introduced with earlier commit, that
should be noted in the commit message. For example::

    Fixes: d7b3707c612 ("util/disk_cache: use stat() to check if entry is a directory")

You can produce those fixes lines by running this command once::

    git config --global alias.fixes "show -s --pretty='format:Fixes: %h (\"%s\")'"

After that, using ``git fixes <sha1>`` will print the full line for you.

.. warning::
   Reverted commits are *not* automatically backported! You need to include the
   ``Fixes:`` tag for the commit it reverts if you want to backport the revert
   everywhere, or the ``Backport-to: YY.N`` tag if you want to backport it only
   in a specific release branch.

The stable tag
--------------

If you want a commit to be applied to a stable branch, you should add an
appropriate note to the commit message.

Using a ``Fixes:`` tag as described in :ref:`Patch formatting <formatting>`
is the preferred way to nominate a commit that should be backported.
There are scripts that will figure out which releases to apply the patch
to automatically, so you don't need to figure it out.

Alternatively, you may use the ``Backport-to:`` tag, as presented in the
following example::

    Backport-to: 21.0

This will backport the commit to the 21.0 branch, as well as any more recent
stable branch. Multiple ``Backport-to:`` lines are allowed, but only the
lowest number mentioned actually matters, so for clarity, please only use one.
You can also use the special ``Backport-to: *`` which will nominate the commit
to be backported to every active stable branch, making it a synonym to the ``Cc:
mesa-stable`` below.

The last option is deprecated and mostly here for historical reasons
dating back to when patch submission was done via emails: using a ``Cc:``
tag. Support for this tag will be removed at some point.
Here are some examples of such a note::

    Cc: mesa-stable
    Cc: 20.0 <mesa-stable>
    CC: 20.0 19.3 <mesa-stable>

Using the CC tag **should** include the stable branches you want to
nominate the patch to. If you do not provide any version it is nominated
to all active stable branches.

.. _testing:

Testing Patches
---------------

It should go without saying that patches must be tested. In general, do
whatever testing is prudent.

You should always run the Mesa test suite before submitting patches. The
test suite can be run using the 'meson test' command. All tests must
pass before patches will be accepted, this may mean you have to update
the tests themselves.

Whenever possible and applicable, test the patch with
`Piglit <https://piglit.freedesktop.org>`__ and/or
`dEQP <https://android.googlesource.com/platform/external/deqp/>`__ to
check for regressions.

As mentioned at the beginning, patches should be bisectable. A good way
to test this is to make use of the \`git rebase\` command, to run your
tests on each commit. Assuming your branch is based off
``origin/main``, you can run:

.. code-block:: sh

   $ git rebase --interactive --exec "meson test -C build/" origin/main

replacing ``"meson test"`` with whatever other test you want to run.

.. _submit:

Submitting Patches
------------------

Patches are submitted to the Mesa project via a
`GitLab <https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa>`__ Merge Request (MR).

-  Please do NOT submit your patches in email to a mailing list,
   we only review patches on GitLab.
-  Please do NOT paste your patches as comments in a conversation,
   unless it is small or unless that is what the maintainers requested.
-  If you are not familiar with how to use git, please learn that
   before making a contribution to Mesa.

When opening a merge request, we recommend the following best practices:

Add a prefix to the title of the MR to indicate which part of the
codebase is affected. This is helpful to people who receive many MRs
and filter them by title. All commits must also have a prefix.
If you are unsure what is the correct prefix, please check the git
history for the files you are changing and choose based on that.

If you are already in the 'developer' role,
add labels to your MR to help reviewers find your MR.
For example:

-  Mesa changes affecting all drivers: mesa
-  Hardware vendor specific code: AMD common, intel, ...
-  Driver specific code: ANV, freedreno, i965, iris, radeonsi, RADV,
   vc4, ...
-  Other tag examples: gallium, util

If you don't add any labels, a bot will attempt to add the correct ones.

Tick the following when creating the MR. It allows developers to rebase
your work on top of main.

::

   Allow commits from members who can merge to the target branch

If you revise your patches based on code review and push an update to
your branch, you should maintain a **clean** history in your patches.
There should not be "fixup" patches in the history. The series should be
buildable and functional after every commit whenever you push the
branch.

It is your responsibility to keep the MR alive and making progress, as
there are no guarantees that a Mesa dev will independently take interest
in it.

Some other notes:

-  Make changes and update your branch based on feedback
-  After an update, for the feedback you handled, close the feedback
   discussion with the "Resolve Discussion" button. This way the
   reviewers know which feedback got handled and which didn't.
-  Old, stale MR may be closed, but you can reopen it if you still want
   to pursue the changes
-  You should periodically check to see if your MR needs to be rebased
-  Make sure your MR is closed if your patches get pushed outside of
   GitLab
-  Please send MRs from a personal fork rather than from the main Mesa
   repository, as it clutters it unnecessarily.

.. _reviewing:

Reviewing Patches
-----------------

To participate in code review, you can monitor the GitLab Mesa `Merge
Requests <https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/-/merge_requests>`__
page, and/or register for notifications in your GitLab settings.

When you've reviewed a patch, please be unambiguous about your review.
That is, state either

::

   Reviewed-by: Joe Hacker <jhacker@foo.com>

or

::

   Acked-by: Joe Hacker <jhacker@foo.com>

Rather than saying just "LGTM" or "Seems OK".

If small changes are suggested, it's OK to say something like:

::

   With the above fixes, Reviewed-by: Joe Hacker <jhacker@foo.com>

which tells the patch author that the patch can be committed, as long as
the issues are resolved first.

These Reviewed-by, Acked-by, and Tested-by tags should also be amended
into commits in a MR before it is merged.

When providing a Reviewed-by, Acked-by, or Tested-by tag in a GitLab MR,
enclose the tag in backticks:

::

   `Reviewed-by: Joe Hacker <jhacker@example.com>`

This is the markdown format for literal, and will prevent GitLab from
hiding the < and > symbols.

Review by non-experts is encouraged. Understanding how someone else goes
about solving a problem is a great way to learn your way around the
project. The submitter is expected to evaluate whether they have an
appropriate amount of review feedback from people who also understand
the code before merging their patches.

.. _merging:

Merging merge requests
----------------------

Once a merge request has been appropriately reviewed, its author can decide to
merge it.

.. warning::
   Pushing (``git push``) directly to ``main`` is forbidden. This bypasses all
   the CI checks and is likely to cause issues for everyone else.

.. warning::
   Do not use the "Merge"/"Merge when pipeline succeeds"/"Set to auto-merge"
   buttons.

We use a `custom script <https://gitlab.com/marge-org/marge-bot>`__ to manage
this, triggered by **assigning the MR** to the pseudo-user `@marge-bot
<https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/marge-bot>`__.

Authors who do not have ``Developer`` access (or above) should ask on the
merge request for someone else to do it for them, or reach on
:doc:`other channels <lists>` if the MR reviewers don't have access themselves.

Do not merge someone else's MR unless you are sure they don't have a new
version that they are testing locally for instance.
**When in doubt, ask**, for instance by leaving a comment on that MR.

Common issues when merging
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

``This branch couldn't be merged: Manual Step encountered with run-manual-jobs set to False``
   The Marge script rebases the MR's branch onto the MR's target branch
   (usually ``main``) and adds some extra info to the commit messages (e.g.
   ``Part-of:`` which contains the URL back to the MR that merged the commit).
   If there is nothing to rebase and nothing to add to the commit messages
   (e.g. if the user took the commits from Marge, modified them and pushed
   that), then Marge will have nothing to push, skipping the creation of the
   merge pipeline.

   The solution is to either wait until something else is merged, causing
   Marge to rebase, or remove the ``Part-of:`` trailer from at least one
   commit message (the top commit is enough, not need to edit all of them),
   causing Marge to add it back. Either of these causes Marge to push new
   commits, falling back into the normal case.


Nominating a commit for a stable branch
---------------------------------------

There are several ways to nominate a patch for inclusion in the stable
branch and release. In order or preference:

- By adding the ``Fixes:`` tag in the commit message as described above, if you are fixing
  a specific commit.
- By adding the ``Cc: mesa-stable`` tag in the commit message as described above.
- By submitting a merge request against the ``staging/year.quarter``
  branch on GitLab. Refer to the :ref:`instructions below <backports>`.

Please **DO NOT** send patches to mesa-stable@lists.freedesktop.org, it
is not monitored actively and is a historical artifact.

If you are not the author of the original patch, please Cc: them in your
nomination request.

The current patch status can be observed in the :ref:`staging
branch <stagingbranch>`.

.. _criteria:

Criteria for accepting patches to the stable branch
---------------------------------------------------

Mesa has a designated release manager for each stable branch, and the
release manager is the only developer that should be pushing changes to
these branches. Everyone else should nominate patches using the
mechanism described above. The following rules define which patches are
accepted and which are not. The stable-release manager is also given
broad discretion in rejecting patches that have been nominated.

-  Patch must conform with the :ref:`Basic guidelines <guidelines>`
-  Patch must have landed in main first. In case where the original
   patch is too large and/or otherwise contradicts with the rules set
   within, a backport is appropriate.
-  It must not introduce a regression - be that build or runtime wise.

   .. note::
      If the regression is due to faulty Piglit/dEQP/CTS/other test
      the latter must be fixed first. A reference to the offending test(s)
      and respective fix(es) should be provided in the nominated patch.

-  Patch cannot be larger than 100 lines.
-  Patches that move code around with no functional change should be
   rejected.
-  Patch must be a bug fix and not a new feature.

   .. note::
      An exception to this rule, are hardware-enabling "features". For
      example, :ref:`backports <backports>` of new code to support a
      newly-developed hardware product can be accepted if they can be
      reasonably determined not to have effects on other hardware.

-  Patch must be reviewed, For example, the commit message has
   Reviewed-by, Signed-off-by, or Tested-by tags from someone but the
   author.
-  Performance patches are considered only if they provide information
   about the hardware, program in question and observed improvement. Use
   numbers to represent your measurements.

If the patch complies with the rules it will be
:ref:`cherry-picked <pickntest>`. Alternatively the release
manager will reply to the patch in question stating why the patch has
been rejected or would request a backport. The stable-release manager
may at times need to force-push changes to the stable branches, for
example, to drop a previously-picked patch that was later identified as
causing a regression). These force-pushes may cause changes to be lost
from the stable branch if developers push things directly. Consider
yourself warned.

.. _backports:

Sending backports for the stable branch
---------------------------------------

By default merge conflicts are resolved by the stable-release manager.
The release maintainer should resolve trivial conflicts, but for complex
conflicts they should ask the original author to provide a backport or
denominate the patch.

For patches that either need to be nominated after they've landed in
main, or that are known ahead of time to not not apply cleanly to a
stable branch (such as due to a rename), using a GitLab MR is most
appropriate. The MR must be based on and target the ``YY.N`` branch, and the
release manager will change the target to the ``staging/YY.N`` branch when
merging it; this avoid issues with the rebasing nature of the ``staging``
branches. Assigning the MR to release maintainer for said branch or mentioning
them is not required but helpful, to allow them to see the MR as soon as
possible.

.. warning::
   Do not merge your backport MR yourself, even if you think it's ready.
   The release manager will do it once everything is ok.

Make sure to use ``git cherry-pick -x`` when cherry-picking the commits
from the main branch. This adds the "cherry picked from commit ..." line
to the commit message, to allow the release maintainters to mark those
as backported, which in turn allows the tools to correctly report any
future ``Fixes:`` affecting the commits you backported.

Documentation patches
---------------------

Our documentation is written as `reStructuredText`_ files in the
:file:`docs` folder, and built using `Sphinx`_.

.. code-block:: sh

   # Install dependencies (adapt for your distribution)
   apk add coreutils graphviz clang-dev musl-dev linux-headers
   python3 -m venv docs-build
   ./docs-build/bin/pip3 install sphinx===8.2.3 mako===1.2.3 hawkmoth===0.19.0 clang===$(llvm-config --version)

   # Build docs (on Debian, set LD_LIBRARY_PATH to /usr/lib/llvm-VERSION/lib so it can find libclang.so)
   ./docs-build/bin/sphinx-build -W -b html docs docs-html/

The preferred language of the documentation is US English. This
doesn't mean that everyone is expected to pay close attention to
the different English variants, but it does mean someone might
suggest a spelling-change, either during review or as a follow-up
merge-request.

.. _reStructuredText: https://docutils.sourceforge.io/rst.html
.. _Sphinx: https://www.sphinx-doc.org/

Git tips
--------

-  ``git rebase -i ...`` is your friend. Don't be afraid to use it.
-  Apply a fixup to commit FOO.

   .. code-block:: sh

      git add ...
      git commit --fixup=FOO
      git rebase -i --autosquash ...

-  Test for build breakage between patches e.g last 8 commits.

   .. code-block:: sh

      git rebase -i --exec="ninja -C build/" HEAD~8
